[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Sikh view of Hinduism
In article <ghenDyotKL.46D@netcom.com>,
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote:
>shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) wrote in article <ghenDyL5Bn.sx@netcom.com>...
>
>> You seem to have a rather unique conception of what "limit" means. It
>> is quite commonly accepted that Vishnu's avataara-s do not have
>> material bodies, pangs, joys, etc., yet this is not a limitation,
>> whilst it must be according to you. Non-association with, and not
>> being subject to, entities that are themselves limited, is not itself
>> a limitation -- it is a sign of freedom from limitation. At least,
>> that is what I've been given to understand.
>>
>
>Actually, I was merely responding to the previous poster who claimed that
>his conception of God was superior because it was free of "mundane"
>attributes. I'm saying if you hold such a position you cannot be a
>particularist. I.e. you cannot say your view of God is the only correct
>one. I avoid this paradox by not being a particularist. (As far as God
>is concerned anyway.) You avoid the paradox by not claiming God is free
>of all attributes.
I don't see why it follows that _if_ one says that God is free of
"mundane" attributes (whatever those may be), _then_ one cannot say
that one's view of God is the only correct one. What is the basis for
this inference?
Also, it is really not very useful to proceed merely upon deciding
which of several conceptions looks good, etc.; a better way would be
to decide strictly based upon the evidence.
>> Who defines "orthodox" in this case? I'm not aware there is any such
>> unanimity that can be called *the* orthodox view.
>
>This is the views of the Mimamsaks. All schools of Vedanta (in theory at
>least) accept Mimamsak views on the nature of Dharma.
Not exactly. This is one issue where I got into a debate on SRV
several months ago. The Tattvavaada (Dvaita) school does not accept
the Miimaamsaka position in several instances -- and in fact goes so
far to explicitly reject the division of Shruti into karma-kANDa and
j~nAna-kANDa, which is at the root of the Miimaamsaka claim. All
Shruti is supposed to be of one quality, and unified in its purport.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
